Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2021

The Current Transcript for February 10, 2021

Host: Matt Galloway

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

[fclip]1858254915625[fclip]

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

RAWIRI WAITITI: Getting kicked out was just a reflection of why we need change to allow the Indigenous peoples to freely practise their cultural identity in our democracy.

MATT GALLOWAY: Sometimes, it seems a tie is more than just a tie. This week, a politician in New Zealand was kicked out of that country's parliament for refusing to wear a necktie. Instead, he wore a stone necklace, an example, he said, of Maori business attire. In 30 minutes, he's here to talk about why this knotty issue gets at the heart of inclusion of Indigenous people in New Zealand and beyond. Also, this morning, this pandemic has seen many essentials in short supply, yeast, vaccines, toilet paper and microchips. Coming up, how a demand for high-tech products has led to a shutdown of Canadian auto manufacturing plants. And talking about shutdowns.

MAN: The crude oil coming through that pipeline supplies the southern market. If this line is shut down, the impact is going to be quite severe.

MATT GALLOWAY: Line 5 is a pipeline that brings oil and gas from western Canada to Ontario. In an hour, how the threat by U.S. officials to block that pipe from running through northern states has raised the alarm over environmental concerns, higher fuel prices and possible shortages in this country. And in the dead of a long, cold winter, though, we begin with the promise of an economic reopening. Too soon or not soon enough? Good morning, I'm Matt Galloway. And this is "The Current".

[Music: Theme]

Experts wary of provincial reopening plans

Guests: Christopher Labos, Raj Bhardwaj, Cynthia Carr

WOMAN: They're excited! We're happy! You see because we've got our masks on, but we are happy. [laughing] We're grateful for the landlords that we have and we're grateful that our staff are so understanding because it's definitely been a challenge for sure.

MAN: So it felt like forever. It's just awesome that it opened up. I tell you, I was all excited this morning. It was better than Christmas!

MATT GALLOWAY: Staff and customers at the Blackfoot Truck Stop Diner in Calgary. This week, restaurants in that province were allowed to reopen as some COVID restrictions were lifted. Depending on where you live, you might be able to start eating in restaurants again, too, or maybe grab a drink with a friend or maybe get a haircut. Remember haircuts? Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and Alberta are all starting to gradually open things back up. Not a moment too soon for some residents and businesses, but some health care workers are concerned that we are jumping the gun. Dr. Christopher Labos is a cardiologist and epidemiologist in Montreal. Dr. Raj Bhardwaj is an urgent care doctor in Calgary, and Cynthia Carr is an epidemiologist in Winnipeg. Good morning, everyone.

EVERYONE: Good morning.

MATT GALLOWAY: Dr. Bhardwaj, Albertans were allowed to sit down in restaurants this week or work out with a personal trainer. What do you make of the decision to move to stage one reopening now in that province?

RAJ BHARDWAJ: I'm really nervous about it. I mean, our overall numbers are certainly coming down, and that's a great thing. But I really worry that we're sort of at the very beginning of a second, almost distinct pandemic, where the number of the variants of concern are starting to rise. And they're starting to rise almost exponentially at this point in Alberta. And that worries me because that... that reminds me of, you know, almost a year ago where the regular coronavirus, the novel coronavirus, was starting to increase. But our numbers were small, and everybody was like, no, it's fine. It won't happen here. It happened everywhere else, but it won't happen here. And I just worry that we're making that same error in judgement.

MATT GALLOWAY: I'm going to get into that in just a moment, Dr. Labos, in Quebec, non-essential businesses like shopping malls and museums opened up their doors this week after being closed for a long stretch. What do you make of what's happening in your province?

CHRISTOPHER LABOS: Yeah, the big problem throughout this pandemic is that the minute you tell people that they can do something, they usually interpret that to mean, oh, that's safe. Let's go ahead and do it. So I think the real question is going to be what happens over the next couple of weeks? Do people start going to shopping malls in droves? Do people start doing more things and coming into contact with other human beings? And the more people do that, the more viral spread we are going to have. And there's a risk that we can undo all the good work that's happened over the past couple of weeks. So I think governments are going to have to monitor the situation because if we start to see cases go back up again, I don't think there's going to be any alternative other than to shut these businesses down again.

MATT GALLOWAY: And I'll come back to that in just a moment. Cynthia Carr, what about for you? In Manitoba, that province has been under, what, almost three months of strict lockdown measures, but things have started gradually to open up again in the last couple of weeks. Is that the right approach?

CYNTHIA CARR: Yeah. So January 23rd, we had some retail reopening and and hair salons. And looking at the trends since January 23rd, we haven't seen an uptick yet, but certainly concerned. We just had an announcement of the first U.K. variant found in Manitoba or identified yesterday. And I definitely did see with the shopping malls reopening in that third week of January, lots of lineup's, lots of chokepoints, which is exactly what the virus looks for to spread.

MATT GALLOWAY: Dr. Labos, you said that there had been good work done in the province of Quebec over the last several weeks with a curfew and stay-at-home, shut down kind of orders. That has led to cases going down, still more than 800 per day, but they're lower than they were before. How do you figure out how soon is too soon? I mean, how do you go about drawing that line?

CHRISTOPHER LABOS: Well, the problem is we really don't know. There is no magic number. You really just have to look at the overall trend, and you have to realize that the situation is adaptive. So you're right in that we are far better than where we were sort of around the holidays. But we're still having quite a few cases per day. I mean, there's still a lot of people getting sick. So, you know, you can set whatever threshold you want. It is, to a certain extent, an arbitrary number. It's a question of where your priorities lie? From the medical point of view, if you want to get cases of close down to zero as possible, you extend the lockdown, you continue doing what you're doing and watch the cases fall. If you, you know, are going to make some compromise for the economic health of society, if you want to look at it that way, then you can do that. But you have to realize that there's going to be a trade-off in terms of new infections. And I think the key is going to be not so much to look at the actual number but to look at the trend. If you start to see cases go up, if you start to see more and more cases of the new variants, which especially with regard to the South African variant, might be resistant to the vaccine, then a warning bell has to go off, and you have to realize that it's time to shut things down again. So this has to be a dynamic process. It's not, you know, do something for four weeks, everything gets better and then stop. It's something that's going to have to continue on and off, probably long-term.

MATT GALLOWAY: Dr. Bhardwaj, let's talk about the variants. Everybody has mentioned them. Cases of COVID-19 variants in Canada have more than doubled in the space of a week. There are at least 104 cases involving those variants in the province of Alberta alone. How does that complicate provincial plans to reopen?

RAJ BHARDWAJ: I think it complicates it because we know that the variants are more contagious than the first coronavirus that we've had, the one that we're dealing with mostly, and with our R-values sitting at about point-eight, point-nine, somewhere in there right now, we know that the variants around the world, when they become dominant, they boost that R-value by quite a bit. So even with the current restrictions, we've only got managed to get our R-value down to point-eight or point-nine. If it goes above one, then the exponential spread starts again. So, I mean, that's the difficulty is that even with the restrictions we have now if the new variants become dominant, we're going to be in a big mess.

MATT GALLOWAY: Long term care residents and staff in BC and Alberta have all been vaccinated. And we know that there is a furious push in other parts of the country to make sure that happens coast-to-coast-to-coast. Is that going to help, Dr. Bhardwaj, as the various take hold? Could we see even as... as cases go up, perhaps fewer deaths amongst the most vulnerable parts of the population?

RAJ BHARDWAJ: One would hope so. We still don't know, although there are signals, that... that being vaccinated will help to prevent the spread. But we still don't know that for a fact. And I don't think that we can make policy quite yet based on... on that assumption. There are reports coming out of places like Germany where the new variants have gotten into long-term care homes where everybody has been vaccinated, and the variants of have torn through those long-term care facilities. Now, usually people don't get as sick if they've been vaccinated, at least in that one case in the long-term care in Germany. But I mean, this is, again, we're gambling with people's lives. So I think that we do need to be dynamic. Like Dr. Labos was saying, we need to be able to put our foot on the brake. And so far, we've... it feels like governments have been a lot more reluctant to hit the brakes compared to lifting their foot off the brake and hitting the gas.

MATT GALLOWAY: Cynthia, is that what it feels like? Is that what it feels like in Manitoba? That people are gambling with people's lives? There's one case of a variant thus far in the province, but the sentiment seems to be that those variants, whether they are originally found in South Africa or Brazil or in the U.K. or elsewhere, that they are going to spread. So is it a gamble from your perspective?

CYNTHIA CARR: I don't know that I want to use the word gamble because we always have to balance, you know, the social impact, the economic impact and the health impact of the disease. But we certainly need to be very cautious. You know, it... it's time-consuming, and it's expensive to conduct the genomic sequencing. So the fact that we have only identified one case of the U.K. variant in Manitoba certainly doesn't mean that there's only one. In fact, it would be unlikely that there is only one. And my concern is that... that this could be the tip of the iceberg. And, of course, humans, our behaviour is the wild card in all of this in terms of pushing the envelope. And I would just remind people that even as things are reopened, continue to use your common sense. If there's lineups, if there's too many people, go home and wear your mask that fits you properly and wear it consistently because we can't give up any of our tools in the tool kit while the vaccine rolls out. And while we learn more about the efficacy of the vaccine.

MATT GALLOWAY: There was a survey done in Manitoba, and the respondents, 65 per cent of them said they would feel safe in restaurants. That survey was done this month. What does that tell you, Cynthia, about how people are perceiving the risk that you've been talking about?

CYNTHIA CARR: Well, you know, I think it's important to engage all community members because we are part of the solution. But we have to remember about what we feel or what we think isn't always scientific fact, particularly if we don't have a lot of data to compare it to because everything has been closed for several months. So when we look at outbreak data, of course, restaurants aren't identified because they're not open right now. So we just have to remember that this virus will transmit when we're not wearing masks. And, of course, we're not wearing masks when we're eating. So I know that the restaurants and businesses will follow due diligence on their part, but we have to follow the rules and not be getting into restaurants with people that are not in our household. And, you know, all be part of the solution and not sabotage this by pushing in ways we shouldn't be.

MATT GALLOWAY: But you use the word balance, and that word gets thrown around in terms of how people are trying to figure out what to do? I mean, there are health concerns around this. There are economic concerns. There are mental health concerns as well. How do you go about striking that balance, Cynthia?

CYNTHIA CARR: That's right. And always, you know, the social, economic and health impacts, weighing that it is not a one sentence answer. It's very complex. But in a communicable disease situation, the science of the disease has to lead the way. You know, the determinants of health are important in terms of economic and social well-being, of course. But a communicable disease will continue to spread if we allow it. So we don't want to have sort of a yo-yo of open, close, open, close. So we have to, you know, follow the rules with the capacities and not be, you know, getting together in large numbers indoors, which is where we know the virus is most likely to spread.

MATT GALLOWAY: Dr. Labos, Dr. Theresa Tam has said that provinces have to be ready to, you know, hit the brakes if outbreaks occur, especially with these new variants. What do you think the psychological effect of another shutdown would be? If we open things up, Cynthia used that idea of the yo-yo, if we open things up, and things go open, and then suddenly we have to, you know, slam the door shut again, what would the psychological effect of that be?

CHRISTOPHER LABOS: Well, I think it's going to disappoint a lot of people, obviously. It's actually going to be pretty hard on on businesses, and we sort of saw this over the summer where a lot of restaurants and other businesses had to close. And then, you know, the government gave them certain guidelines. They reopened, and then they had to close again in the fall. And a lot of them were very upset that they spent a great deal of money renovating, planning, rehiring staff only to have to shut things down again. So we have to be, I think, a little bit honest with small business owners... with small business owners, and then tell them, like, look, these may be temporary reopenings. And maybe it's a little bit unfair to them to string them along almost, if you will, because we know that this is going to be a dynamic process, and this is going to change. So we have to realize that sometimes it's better to be consistent, and it might be better in the long run if we just endure a little bit of self-sacrifice in the short run. I mean, there are countries that have done very well with this pandemic and have managed to reopen much, much fully. So it might be, and I realize this is easier said than done, but it might be better to just have a very intense public health push right now, get cases as low down as possible, get everybody vaccinated and then move forward much more secure in our long term safety with regard to COVID-19.

MATT GALLOWAY: Dr. Bhardwaj, there are public health officials in this country, whether it's Dr. Bonnie Henry in British Columbia or Dr. Vera Etches in Ottawa, who have used the phrase that we need to learn how to live with this virus, that the virus is going to be with us, whether it's this pandemic, whether, as you say, we might be entering another pandemic, could be a third wave on the way. When you hear phrases like that, how does that, or how should it, influence how we think about this process of opening and reopening and how to play that... that instrument so that we don't sacrifice, you know, the benefits that we've made, but we also don't stay in lockdown for months and months on end.

RAJ BHARDWAJ: I think that the idea that we need to stay in lockdown for months and months on end is probably not 100 per cent accurate because the vaccines are on the doorstep. And that is, hopefully, going to change the game. And I think that the difficulty is just keeping the virus, keeping the new variants in check until we can get the majority of Canadians vaccinated. And... and then we can learn to sort of live with the virus. But right now, with you know, even though we've got numbers coming down, we still have hundreds of people in hospital, thousands across the country. And it's just I think it's too soon to say let's just learn to live with the virus. Yes, for sure, as a long-term goal, that's something we can do. But, you know, in the meantime, let's get our contact tracing ability up to date. Let's get, you know, some better understanding of how the viruses will affect schools? Let's get some better understanding of the long-term consequences of of having COVID, whether it was a very severe case or not. So, you know, it's frustrating for everybody because we just don't have all the answers. And, you know, we sort of think, well, it's been a year, why don't we have the answers now?

MATT GALLOWAY: Yeah.

RAJ BHARDWAJ: But, you know, good science takes time.

MATT GALLOWAY: What do you think would help the public understand the stakes better? I mean, given the fact that, as you say, we may be entering this new phase of a pandemic or a new pandemic with these new variants of the virus, what would help the public understand what's... What's at play? Better, Dr. Bhardwaj?

RAJ BHARDWAJ: I think that consistent science-based messaging would help a lot. I think through this pandemic, especially in Alberta, we've had, you know, even the premier calling it just a flu, and talking about how people who have passed away actually have passed away at, you know, at about the... the age that their life expectancy or the average life expectancy of a person in Alberta. And that's just, you know, it's... it's not consistent messaging. And then, you know, then he goes on Facebook Live and starts talking about how, you know, you shouldn't believe conspiracy theories and stuff like that. So I think consistent messaging can really help people to understand where we are, where we're coming from. And along with that consistent messaging, I mean, people are smart, and there's information available from, you know, around the world, but sometimes not from Alberta. And so the transparency of information, I think would be very helpful, because then, you know, if the officials pointed to the evidence and pointed to the data and said, here's all the data, here's the information that we are making our assumptions and our plans based upon, then we could at least, you know, sort of collaboratively look at the data or understand the data a little bit better, understand the decisions and understand why, you know, restaurants are open this week, but, you know, gyms aren't or whatever. But with that lack of transparency and lack of consistency, it... it becomes very difficult. And I think it... it makes people frustrated and angry and says, well, you know, if it's good enough for schools to be open, then why aren't I allowed to go to a mall, which, you know, just doesn't make sense.

MATT GALLOWAY: Dr. Labos, have we learned enough from the previous round of reopenings to prevent further lockdowns as we get set to open in various parts of the country again?

CHRISTOPHER LABOS: Well, I think we've learned some. I mean, there's obviously stuff that now we better appreciate and things that we really just didn't realise a year ago, if you go back to what all of us thought and believed a year ago when this pandemic started. You know, we didn't fully appreciate how many people had no symptoms, and that people were probably spreading the virus even though they felt fine. We didn't, I think, fully appreciate how contagious this virus is. We didn't fully appreciate the wide spectrum of clinical presentations. I mean, we were expecting this to be very much like most respiratory viruses where people have a fever and a cough. But it turns out people can have all kinds of symptoms, anything from loss of smell to diarrhea to just very non-specific symptoms. So we've certainly learned a lot more about the virus, and we're not surprised by things as much as we were. The problem, I think becomes, you know, as we were saying, because there is sometimes conflicting messaging, and because a lot of people haven't really fully appreciated the scope of this virus when we speak about the general public.

MATT GALLOWAY: Right.

CHRISTOPHER LABOS: Like if you don't know somebody who got sick, if you don't know somebody who was hospitalized, if you don't work in the health care system and see on a daily basis the number of people who are coming in sick, you would be walking around your city and be somewhat confused as to why all of us are losing our minds over this? Because, for you, everything seems OK.

MATT GALLOWAY: I can hear Cynthia Carr in the background. We just have about 30 seconds left. What would you say then to those people, as you said, who perhaps don't understand or can't fathom the severity of this because it hasn't directly impacted them, Cynthia?

CYNTHIA CARR: It is very hard to stay vigilant against things that you can't see. That's absolutely a challenge. And just a recent survey about willingness to get vaccinated, one of the main reasons amongst young people who said they weren't willing to participate in vaccination was I don't think that this is a threat to me. So it is very important that we continue to find ways to message and help everybody understand. It is important to all of us whether or not you've been infected or know somebody. Down the line, somebody may be infected as a result of your activities. And so it does matter to everybody, but it's very hard to stay vigilant against something that you can't personally see.

MATT GALLOWAY: You've all given us lots to think about as we continue to move through this pandemic. Thank you very much, all of you.

EVERYONE: Thank you.

MATT GALLOWAY: Dr. Raj Bhardwaj, urgent care doctor in Calgary, Cynthia Carr, epidemiologist in Winnipeg. And Dr. Christopher Labos, cardiologist and epidemiologist in Montreal. I'm Matt Galloway, you're listening to "The Current" were back in about six minutes. Stay with us.

New Zealand MP on why he won’t wear a tie in parliament; the looming crisis in antibiotic resistance

Guests: Rawiri Waititi, Lori Burrows, Steffanie Strathdee

MATT GALLOWAY: So describe from your perspective what happened. I mean, the Speaker said he didn't recognize you as a member, you weren't allowed to speak, and then you were rejected. What was that like?

RAWIRI WAITITI: Well, I think the... the call was a little bit over malice for the... for the reason of not wearing a tie, but I was wearing a Maori pendant around my neck, that is traditional to Aotearoa's Indigenous people. So getting kicked out was just a reflection of... of why we need change to allow the Indigenous peoples to freely practice their cultural identity in our democracy. We... we've had enough of being assimilated and subjugated. We signed the treaty. And the treaty is to show partnership. How can you have a partnership when you've got one partner telling another partner what to wear, how to wear it, what to say, when to say it, what to think and when to think it? And this is where Indigenous peoples all over the world, and I know also that the First Nations of Canada face the same problems, day in and day out.

MATT GALLOWAY: Is that why as you left the chamber, you said, these are your words, It's not about ties. It's about cultural identity, mate?

RAWIRI WAITITI: That's right. This is about cultural identity. This is about the freedom of cultural expression and the freedom of the Indigenous peoples to be able to operate comfortably in a space is not suited for us. We need to ensure that we start to break down the very systems that keep Indigenous peoples in second place.

MATT GALLOWAY: You've described ties, neckties, as a colonial noose. What do you mean by that? I mean, there are a lot of people who don't like to wear a necktie, but... but what do you mean by that language?

RAWIRI WAITITI: [laughing] Well, for Indigenous peoples, it is a colonial noose. And when you're forced to put something around your neck and tie it there to acknowledge a westernized, very westernized attire, and something that has been brought from England to New Zealand, and you force the Indigenous people to wear it, it does feel like a colonial noose. I made reference in my maiden speech to a ancestor of mine who was wrongfully accused of a crime and hung. Before they hung him, he uttered the words, take the noose from around my neck so that I may sing my song. And while I refer to a tie as a colonial noose, it is time for us to start singing our own song, from our own song sheet, from songs that are composed by our people, and not singing the song and beating the drum of the colonial oppressor. So that's why I have touted it a colonial noose. So for Indigenous peoples to be forced to wear ties, I believe, is a colonial noose. It is a noose to a system that continuously oppresses Indigenous peoples.

MATT GALLOWAY: The parliament that you're part of is incredibly diverse. It has 48 per cent women, 11 per cent of its members are LGBTQ, 21 per cent Maori, eight-and-a-half per cent Pacific, seven per cent Asian-New Zealand members. What would you like to see, and this is the second time that you've been kicked out of parliament for not wearing what they believe is, as you know, the appropriate necktie. What would you like to see in terms of a way to better reflect that diverse parliament?

RAWIRI WAITITI: What I would like to see, first of all, is that the Indigenous peoples of Aotearoa are recognized for who they are, what they stand for and recognize the the concept of the oppression of our people in this particular space, the laws that have kept my people in second place. So that's what I would like to see in parliament. The recognition of the people which consented establishment of this government on this land, on stolen land, I must say. So what I would like to see is that the Indigenous peoples of Aotearoa Maori are acknowledged as a treaty partner, and have an equal right to participate in democracy. Unfortunately, even the word democracy means majority rules. Now, when you're outnumbered and you're a minority, then democracy actually doesn't work in our favour. It's a farce. So, yes, we have one of the most diverse parliaments, but we have a long way to go in terms of the recognition of Indigenous rights.

MATT GALLOWAY: What do you want to see and hear from your prime minister? Jacinda Ardern said, these are her words, I don't think New Zealanders care about ties. And she also said she had no objection to ties not being born in parliament. What do you want to hear from her?

RAWIRI WAITITI: Well, it would be New Zealanders from a very white, privileged point of view. You know, comments like that are damaging to to the Indigenous peoples of this country and the relationship that we're trying to ensure that we create, I suppose, and strengthen. It comes from a place of privilege, and that we will no longer accept those types of comments because they are degrading and depowering of our quest for equal rights here in Aotearoa. When you look at all statistics across this... across this country, Maori are at the top of them. We are highly represented across every statistic, across every sector. And the other point I'd like to make is that I support her in the point that, you know, that New Zealanders don't care too much about ties. Absolutely right. And, you know, in parliament, in our democracy, we should be able to freely express our cultural identity as the Indigenous peoples of this country.

MATT GALLOWAY: I'm talking to you, just finally, from the other side of the world. This is a story that has made attention and made headlines around the world. In your country, do you think that what you have done and the stand that you have taken over the clothing that you can wear in your house of parliament is that going to create that change that you're calling for?

RAWIRI WAITITI: Yes, we can go in like a wrecking ball, or we can take the bricks down of the house that continuously oppress my people. And people may see this as a very small and minute stance, but 181 years of oppression and colonization, we have got to start making a stand. I made a stand against the oath to the Queen of England. I don't agree that we should be swearing an oath. Our maiden speech also talked about the constant oppression of our people in Aotearoa, and it was time for change. And I was committed to being the pebble in the shoes of government. And now, in terms of appropriate attire, when I wear our ancestral adornments, that is seen as inappropriate. Of course, this is going to make huge inroads for our people and for the many generations ahead of me to ensure that they are not to be treated like second-class citizens in their own country anymore. It is time for us to step up because colonization has taken not just the land and not just our rivers and not just our seas, but their biggest confiscation has been of our minds and our spirits. And what I am doing is trying to ensure that our people are always number one in their minds and in their spirits.

MATT GALLOWAY: Rawiri Waititi, it's a pleasure to speak with you. Thank you very much.

RAWIRI WAITITI: Thank you for the opportunity. And I would like to greet everybody there in your beautiful country, and just say, you know, we're all fighting a pandemic, an enemy we cannot see, and wish you all the luck in terms of a brighter future for your nation, but also for the Indigenous peoples of your country, the First Nations people [Speaking: A Maori goodbye blessing].

MATT GALLOWAY: Rawiri Waititi is a Maori MP in the New Zealand parliament, he was in Wellington, New Zealand. I spoke with him after he was kicked out of parliament for not wearing a necktie. That rule around wearing neckties was rescinded in the New Zealand parliament early this morning.

[Music: Ambient].

MATT GALLOWAY: You're listening to The Current on CBC Radio one. I'm Matt Galloway. A public health disaster that's taking the lives of hundreds of thousands of people around the globe. Sound familiar? No, I'm not talking about COVID-19. It's antibiotic-resistant infections, or superbugs. A new report published by the Center for Disease Dynamics, Economics & Policy says that more and more people are getting sick from these superbugs. And that echoes the fears of many infectious disease experts that the COVID-19 pandemic is actually making the superbug problem worse. Lori Burrows is acting director of the Michael G. DeGroote Institute for Infectious Disease Research at McMaster University in Hamilton. And Steffanie Strathdee is a Canadian researcher and the associate dean of Global Health Sciences at the UC San Diego School of Medicine. Good morning to you both.

BOTH: Good morning.

MATT GALLOWAY: Lori, what do we mean when we say superbug, what is a superbug?

LORI BURROWS: So a superbug is defined as a pathogen, a bacterial pathogen, that has become resistant to some or all of the antibiotics that we would normally use to treat it.

MATT GALLOWAY: What does this report say about how serious the problem of superbugs is right now in the midst of this pandemic?

LORI BURROWS: It's a big problem. So, you know, we are seeing more and more cases of infections across the world with these superbugs. And coincident with that, we are running out of useful antibiotics because the pharmaceutical industry has largely stopped doing antibiotic discovery research. So when we run out of the ones we have, there aren't going to be any more coming down the pipeline.

MATT GALLOWAY: And when when you run out of useful antibiotics, what happens then?

LORI BURROWS: Then, we are returned to the pre-antibiotic era. So, you know, 100 years ago, people would die from very minor wounds because of those wounds got infected with bacteria. They couldn't be saved because there was nothing to treat them with.

MATT GALLOWAY: Steffanie, tell me more about what we're seeing right now, what's actually happening, for example, in hospitals?

STEFFANIE STRATHDEE: Well, obviously, we're in a situation of a pandemic. I mean, Canada has been hit hard. The U.S. has been hit even harder. But the attention that we were paying to antibiotic resistance in hospitals through what we call antibiotic stewards, think of them as the referees in the hockey game. But this time, it's the hospital. And they're supposed to be standing on the sideline making sure the people are, you know, following the rules, but they know how to play the game and they can skate. So they actually get called into the game OK? So the game here is the pandemic, and they're no longer kind of saying, oh, no, you don't need that antibiotic, you shouldn't be taking that. And so we're seeing that 72 per cent of COVID patients, at least across the U.S., are getting antibiotics unnecessarily. And when that happens, it drives the superbug crisis that Dr. Burrows was talking about.

MATT GALLOWAY: Why would... in a situation where this is a viral infection, why would patients be getting antibiotics?

STEFFANIE STRATHDEE: Well, certainly, you know, doctors know that viral infections are not treatable with antibiotics, but they're trying to prevent secondary bacterial infections. And at least U.S. data suggests that about only seven per cent of COVID patients are acquiring these secondary bacterial infections. But nevertheless, some doctors give them prophylactically. And that's when we get into trouble.

MATT GALLOWAY: And are we already seeing, as Lori Burrows was saying, we're already seeing situations in hospitals where patients would arrive, would present, with symptoms, and the superbug would have taken hold in such a way that traditional antibiotic therapies would be ineffective.

STEFFANIE STRATHDEE: Well, in Canada, I know that even before COVID, 26 per cent of bacterial infections were superbug infections. And that's probably an underestimate. Canada, as well as the U.S. and globally, we're not doing a very good job in terms of our surveillance. So we don't even know how big the problem is. And we just know that by the year 2050, one person every three seconds is going to be dying of a superbug infection. That's 10-million people a year. That's more than cancer, more than motor vehicle accidents. And I'm personally invested in this because my husband was almost one of those patients that almost died of a superbug infection five years ago.

MATT GALLOWAY: What happened with him?

STEFFANIE STRATHDEE: Well, we were travelling in Egypt, and he acquired a superbug. And he almost died. We had him medevac'd back to the U.S., and they didn't have any antibiotics to treat it. I mean, it was just stunning. One minute he was walking around, and the next minute he was about to die. So I was able to get him experimental treatment of viruses that actually attack bacteria called phage. And Dr. Burrows' team at McMaster is working on this. And we're hoping that we can get phage therapy licenced after the appropriate clinical trials are done. And Canada really needs this as well. We need alternatives to antibiotics, but we also need new antibiotics in the pipeline.

MATT GALLOWAY: How did... I mean, something like that, that is as dramatic as you're saying... and he's OK now?

STEFFANIE STRATHDEE: Oh, yeah, he is beside me having breakfast. [everyone laughs] We even wrote a book about it called "The Perfect Predator". And, you know, it's really a wakeup call because, you know, we were blessed that we had the resources. But if COVID has taught us anything, it's that there's fault lines in our society that it isn't that everybody is equally at risk of COVID. It's tends to be people who are poor, communities of colour and have no access to care.

MATT GALLOWAY: Lori Burrows, how are those within the Canadian health care system doing when it comes to using antibiotics appropriately in the midst of this pandemic? Again, Steffanie was talking a little bit about the situation that might be happening globally. But here, have things changed, policies changed, in the midst of the pandemic?

LORI BURROWS: I wouldn't say that policies have changed. I think the problem is that everybody is really overtaxed right now, including the infectious disease physician. So, you know, as Dr. Strathdee said, it's hard to pay attention to this kind of smouldering pandemic that's going on in... in the background while you're trying to fight the wildfire right in front of you. And, you know, there was a lot of anecdotal evidence sort of early on in the pandemic that some antibiotics could have been helpful for these patients. So there's a specific antibiotic called, Azithromycin, that in addition to killing bacteria has some inflammatory properties. So it doesn't do anything at all to the COVID virus. But, you know, there was some thought that it might help with inflammation. And a clinical trial has just been completed that showed it has absolutely no effect whatsoever. So it didn't improve outcomes of COVID patients at all. So, you know, I'm hoping that information like that is going to stop people from using antibiotics inappropriately, just... just in case, you know, in case it works kind of idea.

MATT GALLOWAY: In the meantime, I mean, you talked about the worst case scenario where we end up in a position like, you know, humanity was before antibiotics. But I said that this is a public health disaster that's happening right now. What is, you know, you take a look at the human cost around the world right now. What's going on?

LORI BURROWS: Oh, you know, this problem is only going in one direction, and that's worse. As I said earlier, we don't have a lot of new antibiotics coming down the pipeline. So as Dr. Strathdee said, we're really trying to look for alternatives to antibiotics, you know, probiotics to keep people and animals healthier, so they don't get sick in the first place. Because if you don't get sick, you don't need the antibiotic. And also just education. So, you know, communicating with the public like this. The antibiotics don't kill viruses. So you cannot take them for the cold, the flu, COVID. They must be reserved for bacterial infections only. And that's why they're only allowed to be prescribed by a physician in North America. But in some parts of the world, you can buy them over the counter, so they get misused.

MATT GALLOWAY: Steffanie, this report hints at that in talking about how, you know, this problem is beginning to affect the pathogens that cause HIV, malaria, typhoid fever, that... that those are becoming more resistant. Is that what you're seeing?

STEFFANIE STRATHDEE: Well, certainly we're seeing that the superbugs that exist and are spreading and, you know, we... We're a globalized society. And as people fly around, they carry, you know, the same antibiotic resistance genes and they're transferred between bacteria. And so also, the resources that were dedicated towards HIV, TB, malaria are being diverted to COVID. And so we're losing some of the gains that we've made in this area. And that's a big concern as well.

MATT GALLOWAY: We have seen through drug companies this remarkable progress over the course of this pandemic in coming up with vaccines for COVID-19 working really quickly at speeds that perhaps people did not anticipate to get a couple of vaccines, three or four vaccines that are out in the market now and more coming. Why aren't we seeing that progress when it comes to new antibiotics, Lori?

LORI BURROWS: Oh, that's a terrific question, so, you know, I, as a microbiologist, I am astounded by the amazing progress that we've made against COVID in such a short amount of time. But, you know, the issue there is that it's one pathogen and the whole world is affected. So everybody is rowing in the same direction. And the progress has been amazing. Antibiotic resistance is a way more messy and complicated problem, right? It's not just one organism. It's many organisms. It's not just one type of infection. It's many types of infection. So you can imagine every part of your body can be infected by different pathogens. And each of those pathogens is susceptible to different types of drugs. So the problem is a lot bigger and a lot messier to deal with.

MATT GALLOWAY: Do you see the promise there, Steffanie, even though the problem is messier and bigger to deal with, but given what has been accomplished in the last year when it comes to finding vaccines for COVID, that the same sort of resources could be marshalled to find new antibiotics?

STEFFANIE STRATHDEE: Absolutely, they could. But we've really got to look at this in a concerted action. it isn't one country that does it alone. We've got to ensure that we have multilateral collaboration with the WHO and the United Nations. And we also need to consider this in what we call a one health perspective, the interface between animals and humans and the environment. Because in Canada, 82 per cent of antibiotics are actually not used in people. They're used in animals. They're used in agriculture, agribusiness. And, you know, some steps that Canada has taken are terrific in terms of, you know, not using medically important antibiotics in livestock unless there's oversight from a veterinarian. But that's just a first step. And we really need to have this kind of antibiotic stewardship program in veterinary care as well. And so we really need to look at this, not just, you know, from a health perspective in humans, but a situation in in agribusiness. And to realize that this is going to hit us economically, if we... if we don't take the lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic and prepare for the next one.

MATT GALLOWAY: Laurie, just in the last minute or so that we have, are you optimistic that the Canadian government could take that opportunity? I mean, a lot of attention obviously is being diverted because of this pandemic, but this is lurking in the background.

LORI BURROWS: Absolutely. So, you know, one of... one of the things that I hope comes out of this is, [chuckle] you know, the world is generally much more aware of the power of pathogens for which we have no drugs to cause chaos. So, you know, there is potential to take some of the lessons that we've learned. I'm particularly excited about the potential for diagnostics, right? So we keep talking about rapid tests for COVID. Those kinds of tests for bacterial infections would be real game-changers because they would allow us to identify the bacterial pathogen specifically more quickly and give the right antibiotic.

MATT GALLOWAY: It's great to speak with you both about this, something that I think perhaps people aren't thinking about unless they have had the experience directly of Steffanie's husband. Thank you both for being here.

LORI BURROWS: You're welcome.

STEFFANIE STRATHDEE: Thank you very much.

MATT GALLOWAY: Lorri Burrows, acting director of the Michael G. DeGroote Institute for Infectious Disease Research at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario. Steffanie Strathdee, associate dean of Global Health Sciences at UC San Diego's School of Medicine, and the author of "The Perfect Predator". Your regional update is next. And then, this pandemic has created shortages of things like yeast, toilet paper and now computer parts. How a microchip shortage is affecting North American auto manufacturing plants. That's coming up on "The Current".

What’s at stake in the possible Line 5 pipeline shutdown; Automobile computer chip shortages

Guests: Scott Archer, Warren Mabee, Willy Shih

MATT GALLOWAY: Hello, I'm Matt Galloway. You're listening to "The Current". I think the last thing many people want to hear on a cold winter day is that it might cost you more to heat your home or drive your car. That is the prospect, though, that is facing millions of people in Ontario and Quebec. The governor of Michigan wants to shut down Line 5. Line 5 is a pipeline that runs through that state and supplies half the oil from western Canada to refineries in Ontario and Quebec. Governor Gretchen Whitmer has given Enbridge until May to shut the pipeline down. Scott Archer is with the Pipefitters Union in Sarnia, Ontario. He's behind a petition recently presented to parliament calling on Canada's prime minister to intervene. Scott, good morning.

SCOTT ARCHER: Good morning, Matt.

MATT GALLOWAY: If this pipeline were to be shut down, what would that mean for your members?

SCOTT ARCHER: It would be absolutely devastating. We've got 1,600 members, but there are just in this town and region alone, 5,000 people directly employed and about 23,500 in support roles. It ends up generating 65-billion of revenues annually and about 28-billion in direct trade.

MATT GALLOWAY: And that's all in and around the refineries in Sarnia?

SCOTT ARCHER: Yes.

MATT GALLOWAY: Outside of those workers, what would this pipeline shutdown, were it to happen, mean for people in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec?

SCOTT ARCHER: It's pretty wide-ranging as far as the effects. I mean, it supplies 100 per cent of the fuel to Toronto's Pearson International Airport. It supplies fuel to Montreal's Pierre Elliot Trudeau Airport and Quebec City Airport, all of the heating fuel for rural homes that are heated by propane. Agriculture, it's so wide-ranging, just transportation, gas prices would go up, diesel prices would go up exponentially. And, of course, I mean, this... this region would be gutted. But I really honestly think it would just take the legs out from under Ontario, to be honest with you, Matt.

MATT GALLOWAY: The oil companies are saying that it's not as though the taps are going to run dry. I mean, they're saying that they would make up the shipping loss by shipping the product by truck or by rail. Shouldn't that put our minds at ease?

SCOTT ARCHER: I think it should honestly do the opposite, because Line 5 has never spilt a drop of oil into the Straits of Mackinac. But I don't really see increased vehicle traffic as a viable answer. I mean, how many pipelines have you seen derail? Zero, right? I mean, those of us that are old enough to remember the Mississauga disaster or more recently, Lac Megantic, how many pipelines have run aground? None. And Exxon Valdez is a pretty good example of that, that is fairly far in the past now. But I don't think anybody really forgets it.

MATT GALLOWAY: Right.

SCOTT ARCHER: And, you know, pipelines don't blow tires and end up in the ditch either. It's just such an increased level of... of danger and possible hazards transporting by vehicle that is unnecessary.

MATT GALLOWAY: The governor of Michigan, Gretchen Whitmer, has said that Line 5 poses, in her words, an unacceptable risk to the Great Lakes, that there have been spills of the pipeline in past, not in the Straits of Mackinac, but there have been small spills before. And she says that a spill would be catastrophic to the Great Lakes. What do you make of that decision, given what she says is an unacceptable risk?

SCOTT ARCHER: Honestly, I don't see her stance as one that... that she can really back saying she has any care about the environment. Because if she had not intervened, the tunnel project to run Line 5 through a tunnel in the bedrock under the straits, secondary encased in concrete, which would allow for no leakage ever.

MATT GALLOWAY: And this is what Enbridge has proposed, running this tunnel?

SCOTT ARCHER: That's correct. And Enbridge was ready to execute the work, and she put the brakes on it. So it's been a fight for so long that if she would have let it go ahead, that project would have been complete in about a year from now.

MATT GALLOWAY: It's not just the governor who's raising the environmental concerns of a pipeline running under the Straits of Mackinac, and on the possibility that... that it, you know, could spill into the Great Lakes. Take a listen to David Holtz. He campaigned for the shutdown of Line 5. He's with a group called Oil & Water Don't Mix.

DAVID HOLTZ: We don't trust Enbridge. Their pipeline's in a really bad place for the Great Lakes. And, you know, the Great Lakes are a shared responsibility of Canada and the United States. But Michigan feels a particular responsibility for the Great Lakes because it has more shoreline, and it's more dependent on the Great Lakes than any place, any other state or Canada. And we're taking all the risk for Line 5. And we get very little benefit because most of the oil and the liquefied natural gas that are transported through it are used to supply energy in Canada.

MATT GALLOWAY: Scott Archer, what do you make of that? And part of it is about how we think of the Great Lakes in this country. I mean, they are one of the, you know, the gems in the crown. And he says it's not worth the risk.

SCOTT ARCHER: And well, as usual, most of that is based on emotion rather than fact. If Enbridge is allowed to complete this tunnel project, I can't imagine anything that would be safer. His claim that Michigan has more shoreline than Canada just has me shaking my head. But I really don't think that carries much weight.

MATT GALLOWAY: What do you want the government to do? I mentioned at the beginning that you put forward this petition calling on the Canadian government to take action on Line 5. What does take action mean?

SCOTT ARCHER: What we need is the whole thing is based on the Transit Pipeline Treaty of 1977 between Canada and the U.S., it was negotiated by Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau and President Jimmy Carter. And coincidentally, one of the folks that voted on it back then, and voted for it, was a first-term senator from Delaware named Joe Biden. So what we're doing is appealing to the prime minister to intervene and put the brakes on this because it would take two federal powers to allow this pipeline to be halted. And the trouble is, we don't know where President Biden is standing on this after he cancelled Keystone XL? If I could go back to one more thing too, Matt. Sorry, I'm jumping around a bit here. Now, I know there was a spill referred to previously from Enbridge, but that was back in 2011 in Marshall, Michigan. And since then, Enbridge has not only continued their... their inspection and maintenance program, but they've kicked it out to the tune of eight-billion dollars more spent.

MATT GALLOWAY: Do you think that, I mean, given you referenced Keystone, do you think that the Canadian government will be able to change the mind of the governor of Michigan? She says essentially, you know, this needs to be dealt with by May. The clock is ticking.

SCOTT ARCHER: Yes, and that's what has us sweating. Honestly, based on... on our prime minister's past stance on pipelines, it's got us all a little nervous here. But he needs to understand that this is not an empty piece of pipe running across the ground that has not been a part of our infrastructure for almost three-quarters of a century. Ontario is based around this. And I mean, it's not exclusively Ontario. It's also Quebec. It's a handful of states in the U.S. A lot of refineries have... have flat out stated that they will shut the doors if this is closed. And, of course, the oil comes from Alberta. It's... it's just going to cripple our country.

MATT GALLOWAY: Scott, it's good to speak with you about this. Thank you.

SCOTT ARCHER: Thanks, Matt.

MATT GALLOWAY: Scott Archer, business agent with the Pipefitters Union, Local 663 in Sarnia, Ontario. Warren Mabee is director of the Institute of Energy and Environmental Policy at Queen's University. He's been listening in. Warren, good morning to you.

WARREN MABEE: Good morning.

MATT GALLOWAY: Scott says that Ontario is in some... in some ways based around this pipeline. How critical is this pipeline to Canada's domestic supply of oil?

WARREN MABEE: Well, it is incredibly critical right now. We have a refinery or actually multiple refineries in Sarnia and refinery capacity in Montreal that depend on oil that runs through Line 5. We utilize the fuels that come out of Line 5 right across Ontario and right into Quebec. So people that are driving their cars on the way to work, people that are depending on trucks to move goods around and get groceries to stores, all of those things are relying, to some extent, on the fuel that's generated from the oil that comes out of that pipeline. So it is an important part, really, of Canadian energy infrastructure, even though it runs underneath Michigan.

MATT GALLOWAY: What's different... and part of it, I guess, is that it runs underneath Michigan. But what's different about this pipeline compared to other pipeline battles in this country over the last few years?

WARREN MABEE: Well, in a lot of ways, it's different because the shoe is on the other foot, the oil is coming in to Canada, although, you know, most of it came out of Canada in the first place, passing through the United States back into Canada. And Canada is the one doing the refining. And, you know, with so many of the projects that we hear about, oil is flowing out of Canada, down into the U.S. to be refined and fed into the American energy system. And, you know, in this case, we need that oil in order to support the energy scene that we have. The U.S. doesn't really gain much benefit from it, as has been pointed out, you know, most of it is just travelling through their country in order to feed into our system.

MATT GALLOWAY: The pipeline has operated for more than 60 years. What's its safety record been like? I mean, Scott was talking about concerns that he says are overblown in terms of the Strait of Mackinac. But beyond that, what's happened with this pipeline over the last 60 years?

WARREN MABEE: So it has been a pretty safe project. You know, the leaks that have been experienced, other than the kind of bigger leak that we talked about, have been relatively small, and the impacts have been relatively local. So we haven't had any kind of a spill into the Strait of Mackinac or into the St. Clair River, where it crosses into Canada again. We haven't had, you know, major, major losses, you know, hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil. We've seen spills in the 20,000 litres sort of range. These are important, and they are a danger to local ecosystems. And certainly the the spill that we saw at Marshall, the Kalamazoo spill, that was a longstanding big impact sort of a thing. But, for the most part, the safety record is good.

MATT GALLOWAY: If it's got a pretty good safety record, then why would the governor want it shut down now? Is it just about, as you say, the fact that, you know, her state doesn't really get much out of it, aside from the fact that the pipeline is there?

WARREN MABEE: I think that that might be part of it. You know, the state doesn't see a lot of benefit, economic benefit from it. Part of it is that pipelines are now in the public eye. You know, we think about them. And a decade ago or two decades ago, we didn't. They were invisible infrastructure. Nobody really thought too much about them. We just accepted that they needed to be here. And the tide is turning against pipelines. You know, we are seeing increasingly Canadians and Americans pushing back on this type of infrastructure, partly because there's a transformation happening to the entire energy sector. And, you know, the last piece that I would throw in there is that the energy security piece that the United States has always thought about, you know, and their integration with the Canadian energy system, that has really changed over the last decade. The U.S. is now far more energy independent, far less dependent on Canadian oil. And thus, they're now at a point where they can start to think of breaking those connections without fear of... of losing energy themselves, so.

MATT GALLOWAY: What... what does that mean for us here? I mean, you see this with Keystone, but what does that mean if you're talking about things beyond Keystone, and perhaps that includes Line 5?

WARREN MABEE: Well, it means that a lot of our base assumptions about how the United States is going to work with us, how the United States is going to respond to our project proposals and our interests in either shipping oil to the States or shipping oil through the States has changed. You know, those base assumptions are different because the U.S. is no longer as dependent on our resource. So they're starting to look at that relationship in a different way. And one of the issues I think that we're facing here in Canada is that, you know, we're kind of going project by project. Here's Keystone. Let's talk about Keystone. It's easy for a president to dismiss Keystone and say, well, it's not critical to our infrastructure. Now we'll talk about Line 5. You know, in the future, maybe we'll talk about Trans Mountain or maybe there will be another project that crops up onto the radar. Going project by project is not particularly helpful when we need to think about that entire energy picture. You know, what's the big picture? Where are we going in our partnership with the U.S.? What do we want to achieve?

MATT GALLOWAY: Just in the last few minutes that we have two important questions. One is what happens off Line 5 is shut down, practically. I mean, Scott was talking about higher oil prices and real concern about what happens economically in the town of Sarnia. If this line gets shut down by May, as the governor has said it needs to, what happens then?

WARREN MABEE: Well, I think that if it is shutdown, you know, you'll see the company and probably the Canadian government pushing back and trying to get it reopened. But we'll also see increased shipment of oil by rail, by... by boat. You can see boats coming through Lake Superior and down through Lake Huron to feed into Sarnia. The oil companies will respond by, you know, building new supply chains. But that will take time, and we will see higher prices, particularly in Ontario and Quebec. In the longer-term, you know, companies will start to look at the viability of the infrastructure that they have. And that is a really big concern because you have all of these people, as Scott was describing, who are dependent on the refineries for jobs. That's, you know, a big risk down the road.

MATT GALLOWAY: The other part of this is you said that this is a critical piece of infrastructure right now. Is it possible that shutting down this pipeline could actually accelerate our shift away from oil?

WARREN MABEE: It is possible. We've already heard, you know, just in the last week or two that GM is moving to be all electric or, you know, hybrid electric by the year 20305. Other car companies are moving in that direction. Lots of jurisdictions are starting to make those types of transformations. So what we might see is a future where we're consuming a lot less petroleum product in the form of fuels. And I do think that this is something that Canada needs to wrap its head around. You know, what is going on with petroleum and oil? What is that resource going to be used for in the future? If it's not going to be used for fuel, do we need to produce as much of it? And what should we do with what we do produce?

MATT GALLOWAY: Warren, this has been really helpful. I really appreciate speaking with you. Thank you very much.

WARREN MABEE: Thank you for having me.

MATT GALLOWAY: Warren Mabee is the director of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Policy at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario. We did receive a statement from the Minister of Natural Resources, Semis O'Regan. That statement says, in part, We will continue to engage with the state of Michigan and the Wittmer administration on this matter. You're listening to "The Current" on CBC Radio One. My name is Matt Galloway. From the gas that goes in your car to your car itself. If you were to pop the hood of your car, would you actually know what's going on inside the engine? Classic cars like a Chevy Chevelle or a Ford Thunderbird had one thing in common, that was their simplicity. No computers. Vehicles today rely on computers and microchips to do a lot of different things. And it turns out that that is causing problems for the auto industry. A shortage of microchips is forcing some auto manufacturing plants to shut down production, including in Windsor, Ontario. Willy Shih is a professor at Harvard who studies global supply chains. Willy, good morning.

WILLY SHIH: Good morning, Matt.

MATT GALLOWAY: Just briefly, for those of us who don't understand what exactly a microchip does in a car, what is it doing under the hood?

WILLY SHIH: Well, in modern vehicles, you use microchips for many, many functions. So, for example, you have an engine controller. And that's been one of the things that has really improved fuel economy over the last decade. But also, as you look throughout the vehicle, there are many other functions like the infotainment system or the power windows, things like that. So we have probably 100 microchips doing all kinds of different functions all throughout the vehicle.

MATT GALLOWAY: And so what's causing the shortage of microchips now?

WILLY SHIH: Well, there are really three major contributors to the shortfall. The first one was really demand planning. Today, the world's largest auto market is China. Of course, then the pandemic hit. And in February in China, vehicle sales fell 82 per cent, and they fell 46 per cent in March, OK? And then right after that, as Chinese sales started to recover, they fell in North America and Europe. So back then, most of the automakers were not making very optimistic plans for the rest of 2020. So the manufacturers didn't want to have a lot of inventory, so they didn't order a lot in advance. OK, now the second very important factor is these automotive chips. They have a common supply base with some of the industries that have really seen big growth thanks to the pandemic, things like gaming, computing, telecom equipment. Right now, a lot of those auto chip designers make some of their own chips, but most of them turn to the same so-called foundries, mostly in Taiwan or Asia, to do their manufacturing, right? So that meant the automaker shipped supplies, were competing for capacity in the same factories that make notebook computers or Sony PlayStation Fives or ultimately Apple iPhones. And those other devices have really soaked up a lot of the capacity. So by the time the automakers saw this second half of the year boom, then it was kind of too late to get a lot of their orders in. Now, there was a third factor. The U.S. put sanctions on Chinese companies like Huawei. Now, in the case of Huawei, they anticipated that things were going to get worse for them. So they put massive orders out of these same factories back in the middle of last year. And that really soaked up a lot of capacity.

MATT GALLOWAY: And is it that you're selling a lot more PlayStation Fives and iPhones and laptops and what have you, and that there's more money in that for the chip manufacturers than there would be in selling those chips to auto manufacturers?

WILLY SHIH: For sure. There are really two factors there. One is the chips are more profitable. And the second thing is the quantities are much higher. OK, so, for example, if you look at how many iPhones Apple will sell in the first quarter of this year, it's probably more than the combined total of all the automakers in the world for the full year.

MATT GALLOWAY: What's the effect been? I mean, I mentioned in the introduction that this has led to some auto manufacturing plants to shut down their production. What's happening on the lines right now?

WILLY SHIH: Well, a lot of people are shutting down or pausing production. A lot of estimates are I might lose 100,000 vehicles of production this year, OK? And you only have to be short one ship to be forced to shut down that line. And so you say, well, 100,000 vehicles, that's a lot of jobs and that's a lot of money. The problem for the automakers is the chip is a small part of the vehicle, but if you don't have it, you can't make them.

MATT GALLOWAY: Does this go beyond cars? I mean, chips are in everything now. You think of all the smart devices we have, televisions and thermostats, and we've mentioned the laptops and smartphones and what have you. If this shortage continues, could that affect other industries beyond the auto industry?

WILLY SHIH: Well, I think we are seeing it in other industries. For example, there has been a boom in the flat panel displays that are used in TV sets and notebook computers. And the shortages are affecting that sector as well. We're seeing, which is really unusual, increasing prices, OK? And it's got constrained supplies on things like desktop computer monitors.

MATT GALLOWAY: What does this tell you about the global supply chain? I mean, over the course of this pandemic, we have learned that when you disrupt that or you threaten to disrupt it, there can be shortages of things that perhaps we never expected to see shortages of. You see people, you know, scrambling to buy up things because they're worried that the supply chain could be disrupted and they won't be able to get their hands on certain things. What does this tell you about that global supply chain?

WILLY SHIH: Well, the real surprise for many people is they didn't realise their common dependency. So, for example, automakers never imagined that Sony PlayStation Five demand, for example, could interfere with their suppliers. OK, and what that highlights is this whole question of visibility. Do you know who your suppliers are, and you know who the suppliers of your suppliers are?

MATT GALLOWAY: So people... people don't know who's making the parts for the things that they need in their in their final product?

WILLY SHIH: Right. And you don't know until a shortage hits you. And then you say, oh, I didn't realize I was dependent on them. And it's a hard problem because if you think how many parts are in a car, it's a very complicated process to map out your supply chain. But I think this pandemic and the shortages that have come with it have given new urgency to really understanding who is in my supply chain.

MATT GALLOWAY: Is something like this, a shortage of something that... that has led to, you know, shutting down major auto manufacturing production lines, is that going to change how people look at their supply chains and lead to a different way of thinking about where those parts come from?

WILLY SHIH: Well, it should. But then the question is how long will our memories carry us? Certainly, for the short-term, there's going to be a lot more focus on it. We've seen some automakers saying we are going to hold larger inventories of critical parts like that, you know, because they've all been focussed during the pandemic it's like I got to get costs out of my system. I got to shrink inventories, I got to generate cash to survive. OK, but now we find the trade-off associated with that, which is lost sales on the upside. Will.

MATT GALLOWAY: Willy Shih, I appreciate speaking with you about this. Thank you very much.

WILLY SHIH: Thank you for having me.

MATT GALLOWAY: Willy Shih is a professor of management practice at Harvard Business School.

[Music: Elevator music]

MATT GALLOWAY: And that jaunty little tune brings us to the end of the current for today, speaking of tunes, coming up next on CBC Radio One, it's "Q". Dan Hill today will be inducted into the Canadian Songwriters Hall of Fame, the remarkable family that he comes from. And he has had an extraordinary career. "Sometimes when we touch", a huge hit, obviously, but he has written songs for people like Celine Dion, the Backstreet Boys, Britney Spears, and many, many others. You will hear Dan Hill speak with Tom Power about writing a song that came to define his career. He called it an albatross once. You'll also hear just about what it takes to write an iconic tune, and what it means to be inducted into that Canadian Songwriters Hall of Fame. Dan Hill coming up next on CBC Radio One. I'm Matt Galloway. Thanks for listening to "The Current". Take care. And we'll talk to you tomorrow.

[Music: Theme]

February 10, 2021 Episode Transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode